What is wrong with George Bush?

“However, there were other factors that didn’t support the idea of removing Saddam in 1991…”

There was no intention to remove saddam. Regime change as a foreign policy is a Bush Jnr invention and has no legitimacy. All the coalition of the attack in 1991 intended to do was rescue Kuwaite from Iraqi aggression. That is all. The fact that he hasn’t complied with the little UN versai treaty means FA. I couldn’t care less if he had WMDs coming out his ears… he had plenty in the 80s and the only victims were his own people. If they don’t want to rise up and take him out why should anyone else? He is not the only a$$hole with WMDs and a habit of screwing his own.
After the war the US and others have implemented a vendetta… much like that inflicted on Milosovich and Castro and the cuban people. Talk about childish. Squeese them till they burst. Well, I say lucky for us Saddam didn’t have WMDs or US troops might have had real problems.

“Or using the oil as leverage against the United States perhaps, I don’t know. Sure, the whole thing could appear shady to anyone.”

But if it isn’t about oil how could they do that?

Of course it is about oil.

“If the oil system isn’t protected/maintained/repaired, and needs to be replaced later because it was ignored or attacked, it will cost more money. Iraq isn’t going to have a huge bankbook to start off with. “

The oil is safe. Any bank in the world will drool at the opportunity to offer them loans to get it out of the ground. The only problem will be tempering the greed so that you don’t drill more than you need so that the price stays reasonably high so you make good money on what you sell.

“It might not help the US, but it would provide a more equitable situation.”

If the US cared about an equitable situation then it would genuinely discuss things in the UN and leave its veto and bribes and threats and excess baggage at the door. The sad truth is that while some (little countries that don’t know what power is and therefore really do go to discuss things) might go with good intentions they are rare and easily corrupted. All of the important nations that go are interested in stating their beliefs and then getting their way.

“Stating we were going after WMDs was legal under the original resolution…it was quite a bit after 30 days.”

I am impressed at how well your inspection teams were.

“Ergo, we did have a UN mandate, even if people didn’t like the argument or thought we were twisting the system. I personally am all for a democratic process, even if the US Government is not.”

They say that power corrupts and that total power corrupts totally. I think it is more of a case of we have lots of weapons and money and power… if we can’t do what we want with all this what is the point in having it?… obviously those without will disagree strongly.

“In a society that embraces “what have you done for me lately”, what have they done for us lately?”

Well in an age when most former Soviet allies are still armed with predouble digit SAM systems there is really only one source that got you intimately knowledgable on these systems.

“True there. But you have to admit that had the US come in on the side of the Palestinians in 1947 things may have been a little different regarding our relationship with a number of nations over there.”

I think there is room in the region for both sides. I think if US support wasn’t there for the last 30 years then the Israelis would have either had to be much more aggressive, or much more flexible in the negotiations. At the end of the day, being realistic, if the US had supported the Palestinians the Soviets probably would have helped the Israelis.

“I can’t find fault with that logic. If we regarded oil as some pointless sticky substance we’d have a whole different outlook on the Middle East.”

The region would be a lot poorer too.

“How does the war keep prices low? “

The price is dictated by the flow. If a small country reduces its exports of the stuff then the price might fluctuate a little. If a large country like Iraq decides to greatly reduce its exports then this has a huge effect on the price. (remember at the time Venesuala stopped pumping too due to strikes). At a time of recession after the 11/9 attacks and that can be serious. The solution is to increase the amount of oil that is being pumped. The oil producers might be pursuaded to increase a little, but to increase a lot will drop the price so they will get less for what they sell. Oil isn’t like computers… if you pumped too much just store it in barrels. By invading Iraq even if the situation dicatated the US had to leave within 3 weeks (ie you kill Saddam, but are losing 10 soldiers a day) then you could leave safe in the knowledge that any government that takes power has to get the oil industry up and pumping as soon as possible to get the place rebuilt and healthy again. Remaining there and having your own companies pumping it themselves is the icing on the cake… double dipping at the well so to speak.

“Interesting theory-fertile grounds for terrorism far from our shores make for a much safer United States.”

Basically lawless fertile grounds for terrorism in Afghanistan is how 11/9 was planned wasn’t it?

“His neighbors-now you’re really on to something, give it some thought and it’ll hit you rather quickly “

It hasn’t hit me yet… can you give me a hint… or was all this a plan to get US bases close to Syria, and Iran?

“Ah, but if the UN ignores its own rules, it’s just as irrelevant as if the US ignores them…”

But it makes the rules and rules can be read anyway you like. For example if the US actually liked the Saddam regime I am sure that the requirements of getting rid of WMDs would be forgotten and nothign more would be said. Lets face it most countries in the region probably have WMDs up the ying yang anyway. Of all the countries in the world it is a little hipocritical of the US to get all precious about it anyway. They not only have an abundance of these things, but more importantly they have the means and capability to actually use them if they wanted.

I have avoided this thread because it is quite pointless to argue with a bunch of America haters. Let’s face it, all countries usually only do what’s in their national interest. The US moved against Iraq to end the the possible nexus between terrorists and the former Iraq govt and end its presence in Saudi Arabia. In a larger strategic sence it is to change the Middle East toward democracy. We, not Europe, was attacked on 9/11 and I don’t care if Europeans or the UN think we were justified or not. Those countries that wish to help us will, those that don’t wont. So be it. It’s only when the national intersets of countries clash that people question the motives and try to subvert the other parties. Where was the military threat that NATO had to bomb Yugoslavia? There was none, yet Europeans did it for their national security and moral reasons and America did most of the work. Will most Europeans help America now that the situation is reversed? No. Why? Because Europe was heavily invested in Iraq and not Yugoslavia and it’s payback time against the USA for messing up their deals and investments in Iraq. Europeans will act in their own interest and they want their money paid back that Saddam took. It’s as simple as that – profit. The truth is nobody gave a damn about the Iraqi people before the war; not the world media, Europeans, or fellow Arabs. If we liberate the Iraqis as a consequence of improving our own security, all well and good, but we don’t go around the world liberating people for their own sake. If people in these other countries want freedom, let them fight for it themselves. Europeans own no high moral ground against America. They are just as ready and willing to do business with the devil if they can make a profit. So to all you protesters burning my flag, you should burn your country’s flag too. Be a true, equal hater of politics and profit and you’ll have some credibility in my book, though I disagree with you entirely. If Europe resents the power of the USA, too bad. The EU will never be on par with the USA. While politically Europe may be “united”, (just follow the condescending and paternalistic French and Germans) there is no such thing as a European while there is such a thing as an American. It’s important for the rest of the world to understand that they can be hated too. If terrorists kill thousands of people in France today, I wouldn’t be rushing to help them. If you want your cake, you must eat it too.

If you care to respond, please do, but I’m not going to answer any threads. Enough said.

“The resolution as it stood did not authorise the removal of the Saddam regime. Talk about the Death Penalty for a speeding offence.”

After a further 12 years of watching how he treated the Iraqi people, the idea of removing Saddam from power had a lot more merit now as opposed to then. But I’ll concede that removing him wasn’t part of the resolution, can’t argue with that one bit. However, there were other factors that didn’t support the idea of removing Saddam in 1991…

“Of course it is trying to restart schools and train police and army personel. It can’t hold on to the oil assets in a vaccuum. When the US asks others to come in and help, but don’t touch oil or minerals then you have to question again what this war was about.”

The other side to the coin is that we don’t want any other country getting a monopoly on the oil and getting the upper hand on the Iraqis, taking advantage of the situation as it were. Or using the oil as leverage against the United States perhaps, I don’t know. Sure, the whole thing could appear shady to anyone. I guess we’ll have to see how it turns out, then we’ll know for sure.

“Yes, getting loans to get the oil industry going in Iraq would be very difficult if the US didn’t do it for them… WHAT ARE YOU SAYING???????? As long as their is oil in the ground there their future is secure… they dont’ need thousands of American troops there to protect that. The fact that the US control it makes it a target. US oil companies will also become targets when they move in.”

If the oil system isn’t protected/maintained/repaired, and needs to be replaced later because it was ignored or attacked, it will cost more money. Iraq isn’t going to have a huge bankbook to start off with.

“But don’t you see that will not help you… you don’t want a democratic process. You want the UN to just say yes. Even without the vetoes that you were going to ignore anyway it is obvious you will still have lost the vote in the UNSC. Hense you still would have acted outside the UN ironically to, what you call, enforce UN resolutions… a unilateral action to support an organisation that you call obsolete…”

It might not help the US, but it would provide a more equitable situation. Stating we were going after WMDs was legal under the original resolution…it was quite a bit after 30 days. Ergo, we did have a UN mandate, even if people didn’t like the argument or thought we were twisting the system. I personally am all for a democratic process, even if the US Government is not. I don’t entirely “toe the party line” exclusively.

“Lets face it… as long as Israel has the US’s support anything the UN says will mean nothing.”

Unfortunately that is entirely correct. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again-I don’t agree with our Israel policy. In a society that embraces “what have you done for me lately”, what have they done for us lately?

“Many more of their problems evolve from British nation building at the start of last century and religious crusades from Europe many years before that.
That is one of the reasons I oppose intervention in the ME by the west… it is just a continuation of the interference that has not helped in the past, and the obvious reasons it hasn’t worked in the past is because the intervention is never based on the wellbeing of those in the region… it has either been about religion or oil and the intention of the interference has always been to change things in the favour of the interfering interest, not those that live in the region.”

True there. But you have to admit that had the US come in on the side of the Palestinians in 1947 things may have been a little different regarding our relationship with a number of nations over there.

“It is a region that is important because of the presence of oil. More accurately it is a region that is important because of our addiction, our dependance on oil and the related materials oil is used to make.”

I can’t find fault with that logic. If we regarded oil as some pointless sticky substance we’d have a whole different outlook on the Middle East.

I am a firm believer in the human spirit. If all the oil in the world disappeared overnight then of course there would be pain and suffering. In WWII the germans developed synthetic oil from coal. Petrol (gasoline) is not the only thing that can power cars. Solar power can be used to extract hydrogen from water… burn that in a car and the emission is water. Hydrogen is no more dangerous than petrol…
Even sunflower oil can be used to power cars.
What is holding all these technologies back? The low cost and availablity of oil.
The war in Iraq wasn’t fought to save Iraqis. If it was it would have been fought in the late 80s to save the kurds, or the mid 90s when the Turks invaded northern iraq to hunt down kurdish terrorists, or in 1991 to support the uprising. There is a lot of oil in Iraqi but there are plenty of other places to get it. The war wasn’t about oil as such, it was about keeping the price of oil low.”

How does the war keep prices low? They’ve been fluctuating upward for a while (at least gas has here). Saddam wasn’t exactly flooding the market to begin with, so keeping that production going isn’t going to exactly help matters. Now if you want to look at it as a way for the West to get the drop on OPEC, we may have an interesting theory. Of course, a much easier way would have been to say “OK Khadaffi, you said sorry and paid up, now sell us some black gold.”

“The only terrorist factor was in the lawless northern areas where the no fly zone prevented Saddam from dealing with them himself. By destroying the rule of law… even a corrupt and not very nice law like under Saddam you actually created a fertile place for terrorism. Saddam likes Osama Bin Laden about as much as any American does.”

Interesting theory-fertile grounds for terrorism far from our shores make for a much safer United States.

“The Soc party has a nice ring to it… 🙂 ..a bit like pajama party but with less on… }>”

😮 Imagining me at a pajama party has nothing to do with world affairs! 😀

“Well that needed to be debated in the UNSC. At the end of the day I really don’t think having WMDs would have made any difference at all for Saddam. His neighbours are either too strong for him to take on or protected by someone too strong for him to take on.
You might not like him but he is not suicidal. I think we can agree he has only attacked those he thought he could beat, or those he wanted to rattle (ie Israel) for a purpose.”

His neighbors-now you’re really on to something, give it some thought and it’ll hit you rather quickly 😉

“Well, in a sense the problem was solved by seige of the sanctions. The Iraqis weren”t exactly getting off scot free afterall.”

Ah, but if the UN ignores its own rules, it’s just as irrelevant as if the US ignores them…

“No, the US is consistant. Before the war it said let the inspectors do their job… war is a last resort. The US was saying lets go in now while he is to weak to really hurt us much… in 10 years time it might not be so easy.”

Obviously meant “No, the UN is consistant. …

“Did this happen? Was irrefutable evidence given? No? Then the original resolution stands and the action was the correct one, even if the UN wanted to rewrite its own rules.”

The resolution as it stood did not authorise the removal of the Saddam regime. Talk about the Death Penalty for a speeding offence.

“How is the US only interested in the oil infrastructure? We’ve begun setting up schools for Iraqis in Baghdad, for one.”

Of course it is trying to restart schools and train police and army personel. It can’t hold on to the oil assets in a vaccuum. When the US asks others to come in and help, but don’t touch oil or minerals then you have to question again what this war was about.

“Of course we should give a good deal of attention to the oil infrastructure however, how else are they going to have a chance at economic growth in the future if it isn’t taken care of?”

Yes, getting loans to get the oil industry going in Iraq would be very difficult if the US didn’t do it for them… WHAT ARE YOU SAYING???????? As long as their is oil in the ground there their future is secure… they dont’ need thousands of American troops there to protect that. The fact that the US control it makes it a target. US oil companies will also become targets when they move in.

“Getting rid of the veto power is the only way to ensure that a true democratic process exists on the floor of the United Nations.”

But don’t you see that will not help you… you don’t want a democratic process. You want the UN to just say yes. Even without the vetoes that you were going to ignore anyway it is obvious you will still have lost the vote in the UNSC. Hense you still would have acted outside the UN ironically to, what you call, enforce UN resolutions… a unilateral action to support an organisation that you call obsolete…

“I do find great fault with the United States for its blatant favoritism with regard to Israel. “

Lets face it… as long as Israel has the US’s support anything the UN says will mean nothing.

“I have no problem admitting that many of our problems with the Arab community around the world, including some of their more independently militant factions per se, stem from that favoritism. “

Many more of their problems evolve from British nation building at the start of last century and religious crusades from Europe many years before that.
That is one of the reasons I oppose intervention in the ME by the west… it is just a continuation of the interference that has not helped in the past, and the obvious reasons it hasn’t worked in the past is because the intervention is never based on the wellbeing of those in the region… it has either been about religion or oil and the intention of the interference has always been to change things in the favour of the interfering interest, not those that live in the region.

“It’s about stability in a region that has a tendency to be a thorn in people’s sides way too often. It’s about the plight of the Iraqi people.”

It is a region that is important because of the presence of oil. More accurately it is a region that is important because of our addiction, our dependance on oil and the related materials oil is used to make.
I am a firm believer in the human spirit. If all the oil in the world disappeared overnight then of course there would be pain and suffering. In WWII the germans developed synthetic oil from coal. Petrol (gasoline) is not the only thing that can power cars. Solar power can be used to extract hydrogen from water… burn that in a car and the emission is water. Hydrogen is no more dangerous than petrol…
Even sunflower oil can be used to power cars.
What is holding all these technologies back? The low cost and availablity of oil.
The war in Iraq wasn’t fought to save Iraqis. If it was it would have been fought in the late 80s to save the kurds, or the mid 90s when the Turks invaded northern iraq to hunt down kurdish terrorists, or in 1991 to support the uprising. There is a lot of oil in Iraqi but there are plenty of other places to get it. The war wasn’t about oil as such, it was about keeping the price of oil low.

“Add the terrorism factor in there, and they had a reason to give it a go and put an end to the problems.”

The only terrorist factor was in the lawless northern areas where the no fly zone prevented Saddam from dealing with them himself. By destroying the rule of law… even a corrupt and not very nice law like under Saddam you actually created a fertile place for terrorism. Saddam likes Osama Bin Laden about as much as any American does.

“God help us if a third party candidate gets into the Oval Office, I don’t want to think about the possibilities that could come from that.”

The Soc party has a nice ring to it… 🙂 ..a bit like pajama party but with less on… }>

“No they weren’t. Nobody made sure of a total and complete disarmament 30 days after the war ended. Part of it was our fault for having to look the other way-politicians were able to write the war off as won and head off to the campaign trails, Bush Sr. included.”

Well that needed to be debated in the UNSC. At the end of the day I really don’t think having WMDs would have made any difference at all for Saddam. His neighbours are either too strong for him to take on or protected by someone too strong for him to take on.
You might not like him but he is not suicidal. I think we can agree he has only attacked those he thought he could beat, or those he wanted to rattle (ie Israel) for a purpose.

“If anyone wanted to take the UN seriously they should have solved the problem 30 days after the end of Desert Storm. And they should formally condemn the US Government for its blatant Israeli favoritism.”

Well, in a sense the problem was solved by seige of the sanctions. The Iraqis weren”t exactly getting off scot free afterall.

“No, the US is consistant. Before the war it said let the inspectors do their job… war is a last resort. The US was saying lets go in now while he is to weak to really hurt us much… in 10 years time it might not be so easy.”

Saddam’s time was 11 and a half eyars or so overdue. He had 30 days after the end of the first war to disarm entirely. Did this happen? Was irrefutable evidence given? No? Then the original resolution stands and the action was the correct one, even if the UN wanted to rewrite its own rules.

“Now you are in. Saying we shouldn’t attack Iraq is a moot point… the dirty deed has been done. Now the question for the UN is should the world come in and help Iraq through investment and rebuilding on the US’s terms.. ie US control (not the US/UK/Australian etc coalition control mind you, this is the US’s country now buddy). Or leave the US to fix everything…even though they only still seem to be interested in the oil infrastructure. The UN has to ask itself can we trust paying taxes into a system that is controlled by a former US general, while the rest of the profits can be bled from Iraq for the next 5 years. In two years the US is bound to claim the world is bleeding all of the cash out of Iraq and try to take the moral high ground… of course there is no way an international company couldn’t take out as much as it can get to cover costs… life insurance for its employees would be rediculously expensive, not to mention that after building up an area of the economy there is nothing to stop some terrorist idiot from blowing it all up.”

The terrorist idiots are the problem, I’m not disputing that. Terrorist insurance…someone could make a good bit of cash on that one I’d wager, moral issues aside. How is the US only interested in the oil infrastructure? We’ve begun setting up schools for Iraqis in Baghdad, for one. Of course we should give a good deal of attention to the oil infrastructure however, how else are they going to have a chance at economic growth in the future if it isn’t taken care of?

“The purpose for the UN is an international forum for mediation and discussion and international pressure. Any resolutions of Israel are always vetoed by the US anyway. If you want to pass blame for impotence then stop the big 5s vetoing rights… and even then the UN is not intended as a world policeman… despite the fact that the US globally and in Europe NATO likes that role doesn’t mean it is legitimate.”

Now here we agree, and you’ll probably be suprised. Getting rid of the veto power is the only way to ensure that a true democratic process exists on the floor of the United Nations. I do find great fault with the United States for its blatant favoritism with regard to Israel. I have no problem admitting that many of our problems with the Arab community around the world, including some of their more independently militant factions per se, stem from that favoritism. Equality for all and our one-sided support for Israel don’t exactly go hand in hand. Is the veto really necessary anymore? I’d have to say no-there’s enough international and economic pressure on the Security Council at any given moment for a resolution to have weight.

“The point is democracy is based on majority rule. If you have someone one your council that represents less than 1% of the population and only one other on your council that represents over 50% of the population and they both just get one vote then you are not really seeing true democracy… unless both were voted in of course… in this case they are not. It is called proportional representation.”

The idea is for these people to form a new constitution, and then a new government-they aren’t going to remain in place forever.

“No, there isn’t. Wouldn’t you agree that I am one of the biggest “anti Americans” here, yet I consider you a friend. Your interest in Soviet and Russian weapons is something we share, and we seem to agree on some other topics as well, like the DP.”

I refer to anti-American sentiment not necessarily as a derogatory label, but as a statement of the opinions I am seeing here. Yeah, I can come off a little harsh at times, but we all can when defending something we feel strongly about. For that matter I hope no-one has been offended by my writing (or ranting, as the case may sometimes be :rolleyes: ). I do consider you a friend here on the board, and the fact that you, myself, and many others of dissenting opinion can engage in a structured and civil debate goes a long way towards describing the character of those involved.

“I am anti nazi… and I don’t like anyone who is a nazi. If you were a nazi (of course you are not) I would make it quite clear that I thought Hitler was an A hole and that I wouldn’t consider you a potential friend till you shaped up. Even if you liked Soviet equipment and fuly supported the DP we would not be friends and I probably wouldn’t bother discussing anything with you.”

Nope, definitely not a Nazi over here

“Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to change you mind about bush or the war in Iraq… any more than you’d expect to change Dutchy’s mind on the DP. But knowing there are rational reasons for disagreeing is important… even if you don’t agree with them.”

Concur fully.

“I don’t call anyone names, and disagreeing on this subject doesn’t change my opinion of you… I expected you to say pretty much what you said… Now if Arthur pops up and says he was wrong and the F-16 isn’t all that unattractive then I would be surprised.. 🙂
I have not tried to stop anyone else expressing their views (and if I could I certainly wouldn’t). I am guilty of making sure you know my position but I will not appologise for that.”

And I wouldn’t expect an apology-when two people enter into a debate it is a given that opinions will come out, that’s the whole point. And the F-16 is rather unattractive.

“When it is the only thing not up for sale now… tell me it isn’t about wanting stability in a country that produces a lot of oil. (Direct Control is a perk Bush jnr isn’t going to give up.)”

It’s about stability in a region that has a tendency to be a thorn in people’s sides way too often. It’s about the plight of the Iraqi people.

“I doubt they all have the same agenda. The Shia majority might want you to leave so they can round up those in the Ba’ath party and show them what the last 20-30 years have been like. The Kurds might just want a time to consolidate so they can start mounting proper operations into Turkey and Iran… trained up as they are by US Spec Ops. The Ba’ath party members might be divided… half want you to stay so they can keep hurting you, while others know Saddam cannot get back into power till you are gone (dreamers, yes, but what has reason got to do with it?)
For each of these reasons there are probably 10 others for everyone to go either way on the subject. In the end they probably all want control and running water and oil, and all the sewerage in the sewers… not the streets. For some that is never going to happen with their method (ie suicide bombers aren’t going to make that happen… but if you are angry it might make them feel better.)”

See? We’re making them feel better already! Isn’t that worth something? 😀

“Why start caring about the Iraqis now? 12 years of sanctions have not done them any favours. Asking them to rise up and then abandoning them didn’t do them much good either. Then you go in and secure their oil and demand those who disagreed with you on the invasion to help patchup the society you just bombed… but keep your hands off the only thing there actually worth a lot of money… we wont even share that with the allies that went in with us… Yeah what was I thinking? After the UN goes in and helps in 20 years time it will have been the US that fixed everything there.”

Ok here’s the problem-for most of the time after Desert Storm, the party in the White House chose to contain Saddam. A new one gets in, and it decides the last 12 years didn’t exactly work out too well. Add the terrorism factor in there, and they had a reason to give it a go and put an end to the problems. Half of our problem over here is the constantly changing political climate-just when the world gets used to dealing with one side, the other steps in. God help us if a third party candidate gets into the Oval Office, I don’t want to think about the possibilities that could come from that.

“The resolutions were being enforced. Inspectors were on the ground, sanctions were in place. If his neighbours weren’t afraid why should anyone else be?”

No they weren’t. Nobody made sure of a total and complete disarmament 30 days after the war ended. Part of it was our fault for having to look the other way-politicians were able to write the war off as won and head off to the campaign trails, Bush Sr. included.

America never puts conditions on its help? All help comes with conditions. Everyone who hands over 5 bucks to a homeless man says don’t spend this on booze.

Ok, you may have a point there.

“He is around. And your turkish allies… you know members of NATO… they kill Kurds too. Often happens when you have so called seperatists. The Kurds are the KLA, they are the Chechen Rebels, they are the Palestinians, Eta, Farc, etc etc.”

Not for long he won’t be. And our Saudi “allies” and Pakistani “allies” just might have terrorism connections as well. Isn’t the politics of this all just a major headache when you are trying to get anything productive accomplished?

“If you think that the UN is just there to rubber stamp things you want to do… just because, then for you the UN is irrelevant. The UN is not created to do what its members demand… when they demand, based on how much they contribute, how many soldiers they have, or how much money they have.
Look at the quote above… I’ll repeat it again.”

On one hand Botswana for example should have absolutely no say in how the US conducts foreign policy. On the other hand if we are going to play we need to follow the rules. But the UN needs to follow its own rules as well (30 days…), and dropping the veto would be the first step towards making that quite a bit easier. Of course, the US government would probably gripe about it and leave the UN (or veto the resolution to kill the veto-the ultimate irony), and then we’re back to square one really.

“If you wanted the US to cooperate with the UN the UN should have done what the US wanted to do.”

If anyone wanted to take the UN seriously they should have solved the problem 30 days after the end of Desert Storm. And they should formally condemn the US Government for its blatant Israeli favoritism.

“Homework: Define the word cooperate. It seems America has forgotten what that means.”

Cooperate-act according to the wishes of the highest campaign contributor 😉

“We could say the same to you. If being in Iraq is bad you shouldn’t be tryign to get in yourselves…”

No, the US is consistant. Before the war it said let the inspectors do their job… war is a last resort. The US was saying lets go in now while he is to weak to really hurt us much… in 10 years time it might not be so easy.

Now you are in. Saying we shouldn’t attack Iraq is a moot point… the dirty deed has been done. Now the question for the UN is should the world come in and help Iraq through investment and rebuilding on the US’s terms.. ie US control (not the US/UK/Australian etc coalition control mind you, this is the US’s country now buddy). Or leave the US to fix everything…even though they only still seem to be interested in the oil infrastructure. The UN has to ask itself can we trust paying taxes into a system that is controlled by a former US general, while the rest of the profits can be bled from Iraq for the next 5 years. In two years the US is bound to claim the world is bleeding all of the cash out of Iraq and try to take the moral high ground… of course there is no way an international company couldn’t take out as much as it can get to cover costs… life insurance for its employees would be rediculously expensive, not to mention that after building up an area of the economy there is nothing to stop some terrorist idiot from blowing it all up.

“The UN is irrelevant if it doesn’t uphold the resolutions it passes. Like, for example, requiring Israel to withdrawl to its 1967 borders…”

The purpose for the UN is an international forum for mediation and discussion and international pressure. Any resolutions of Israel are always vetoed by the US anyway. If you want to pass blame for impotence then stop the big 5s vetoing rights… and even then the UN is not intended as a world policeman… despite the fact that the US globally and in Europe NATO likes that role doesn’t mean it is legitimate.

“Each faction is entitled to an equal voice, is it not? Your example is without merit anyway, Clinton didn’t exactly chem anybody, did he?”

The point is democracy is based on majority rule. If you have someone one your council that represents less than 1% of the population and only one other on your council that represents over 50% of the population and they both just get one vote then you are not really seeing true democracy… unless both were voted in of course… in this case they are not. It is called proportional representation.

“but you have to at least concede that there is a significant anti-American feeling on this board.”

No, there isn’t. Wouldn’t you agree that I am one of the biggest “anti Americans” here, yet I consider you a friend. Your interest in Soviet and Russian weapons is something we share, and we seem to agree on some other topics as well, like the DP.

I am anti nazi… and I don’t like anyone who is a nazi. If you were a nazi (of course you are not) I would make it quite clear that I thought Hitler was an A hole and that I wouldn’t consider you a potential friend till you shaped up. Even if you liked Soviet equipment and fuly supported the DP we would not be friends and I probably wouldn’t bother discussing anything with you.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to change you mind about bush or the war in Iraq… any more than you’d expect to change Dutchy’s mind on the DP. But knowing there are rational reasons for disagreeing is important… even if you don’t agree with them.

“Actually I believe I was having a relatively civil and intelligent discussion. Feel free to judge me all you want. You just don’t appear to approve of others expressing views not totally in line with your own.”

I don’t call anyone names, and disagreeing on this subject doesn’t change my opinion of you… I expected you to say pretty much what you said… Now if Arthur pops up and says he was wrong and the F-16 isn’t all that unattractive then I would be surprised.. 🙂
I have not tried to stop anyone else expressing their views (and if I could I certainly wouldn’t). I am guilty of making sure you know my position but I will not appologise for that.

“You still think this was about oil obviously, so whatever.”

When it is the only thing not up for sale now… tell me it isn’t about wanting stability in a country that produces a lot of oil. (Direct Control is a perk Bush jnr isn’t going to give up.)

“If they are protesting our “occupation”, doesn’t that imply they want us to end it, and therefore leave?”

I doubt they all have the same agenda. The Shia majority might want you to leave so they can round up those in the Ba’ath party and show them what the last 20-30 years have been like. The Kurds might just want a time to consolidate so they can start mounting proper operations into Turkey and Iran… trained up as they are by US Spec Ops. The Ba’ath party members might be divided… half want you to stay so they can keep hurting you, while others know Saddam cannot get back into power till you are gone (dreamers, yes, but what has reason got to do with it?)
For each of these reasons there are probably 10 others for everyone to go either way on the subject. In the end they probably all want control and running water and oil, and all the sewerage in the sewers… not the streets. For some that is never going to happen with their method (ie suicide bombers aren’t going to make that happen… but if you are angry it might make them feel better.)

“…shouldn’t the Iraqi people’s needs come first?”

Why start caring about the Iraqis now? 12 years of sanctions have not done them any favours. Asking them to rise up and then abandoning them didn’t do them much good either. Then you go in and secure their oil and demand those who disagreed with you on the invasion to help patchup the society you just bombed… but keep your hands off the only thing there actually worth a lot of money… we wont even share that with the allies that went in with us… Yeah what was I thinking? After the UN goes in and helps in 20 years time it will have been the US that fixed everything there.

“Our choice to step up when the UN refused to enforce its own resolutions, our choice to step into harm’s way and liberate Iraq from a corrupt dictatorial regime…yeah, not very noble indeed “

The resolutions were being enforced. Inspectors were on the ground, sanctions were in place. If his neighbours weren’t afraid why should anyone else be?

“I don’t see you condemning other nations for putting conditions on their help…shouldn’t the Iraqi people’s needs come first?”

America never puts conditions on its help? All help comes with conditions. Everyone who hands over 5 bucks to a homeless man says don’t spend this on booze.

“And he isn’t around to kill off Kurds or harass his people, so why wouldn’t Iraq be better off without him?”

He is around. And your turkish allies… you know members of NATO… they kill Kurds too. Often happens when you have so called seperatists. The Kurds are the KLA, they are the Chechen Rebels, they are the Palestinians, Eta, Farc, etc etc.

“If you wanted us to go along with the UN in the first place you shouldn’t have dictated terms.”

If you think that the UN is just there to rubber stamp things you want to do… just because, then for you the UN is irrelevant. The UN is not created to do what its members demand… when they demand, based on how much they contribute, how many soldiers they have, or how much money they have.
Look at the quote above… I’ll repeat it again.

“If you wanted us to go along with the UN in the first place you shouldn’t have dictated terms.”

If you wanted the US to cooperate with the UN the UN should have done what the US wanted to do.

Homework:

Define the word cooperate. It seems America has forgotten what that means.

Originally posted by GarryB
If you want international help then you are going to have to talk to us like we are adults and not just dictate terms.

If you wanted us to go along with the UN in the first place you shouldn’t have dictated terms.

“Hmmm, pick one and stick with it?”

We could say the same to you. If being in Iraq is bad you shouldn’t be tryign to get in yourselves…

“Like the UN is irrelevant if it doesn’t support our action, or it is the UNs role to come in now and defend democracy and help Iraq. …well which is it?”

The UN is irrelevant if it doesn’t uphold the resolutions it passes. Like, for example, requiring Israel to withdrawl to its 1967 borders…

“What would you do if a foreign power came into your country, removed your leader… even if it was Clinton, and then in the rioting and chaos protected fort knox and your oil fields and nothing else. Now they have gotten together a group of so called leaders that has fair (ie non proportional representation) for all groups, who are going to be your voice for a while… ohh and if troops burst into your house then you should cooperate…”

Each faction is entitled to an equal voice, is it not? Your example is without merit anyway, Clinton didn’t exactly chem anybody, did he?

“Which violated which law or Sanction? It is well know that Iraq and Russia have ties. Whipty doo!”

Actually I don’t think this violates anything, so more power to them.

“Many Americans attacked Clintons policies… including Bush… it is his job… I guess he is unAmerican too.
If you can’t tell the difference between an attack and some criticism then I can understand the real problem. If Americans can’t be criticised… they must be perfect already… no wonder they have such high opinions of themselves.”

:rolleyes: I do consider a direct verbal assault on the character of the President an attack. Maybe it’s just me. Perhaps anti-American was the wrong label to use on Kevin in this instance, but you have to at least concede that there is a significant anti-American feeling on this board.

“You just don’t like it when other speak out back, or have a diferent view… “your either with us or against us” remember…”

Actually I believe I was having a relatively civil and intelligent discussion. Feel free to judge me all you want. You just don’t appear to approve of others expressing views not totally in line with your own.

“They have to stay mate… those dumb Iraqis might have a civil war and the result might be the oil stops flowing for a while… the whole point of the invasion was to keep the oil production up and therefore prices down.”

:rolleyes: You still think this was about oil obviously, so whatever.

“Do you really think it is in their interests that you leave sooner? Assuming they support Saddam they will prefer that another “target” is present in the country for Iraqis to be p!$$ed off at, then later get some power back. Assuming they support Osama they just want some cheap shots at American personel from friendly territory. They both probably want the occupation force to over stay and become an occupation force… it breeds local sympathy for them.”

If they are protesting our “occupation”, doesn’t that imply they want us to end it, and therefore leave?

“That is to your credit, but your choice to go in the first place, and now your demands that the UN comes in and helps fill in the craters you made, with promises to allow anyone who does take the risks that they can take their profits out of Iraq, and you fully admit there are huge risks, but oil and minerals are off limits and control remains in some US ex generals hands for the immediate future. Yeah… sounds like a sweet deal to me. But not very noble.”

Our choice to step up when the UN refused to enforce its own resolutions, our choice to step into harm’s way and liberate Iraq from a corrupt dictatorial regime…yeah, not very noble indeed :rolleyes: I don’t see you condemning other nations for putting conditions on their help…shouldn’t the Iraqi people’s needs come first?

“We can go it alone… but now we need your help… but don’t criticise us… we did the right thing. Did you? Is the world safer? Are the Iraqis better off?”

You’re wrong for not having UN help…you’re wrong for now asking for UN help…you’re just wrong. I’d wager the world is a safer place without Hussein in power. And he isn’t around to kill off Kurds or harass his people, so why wouldn’t Iraq be better off without him?

sure, then don’t complain, or else do something….

Action without international support is what got you into this mess.

If you want international help then you are going to have to talk to us like we are adults and not just dictate terms.

After all we weren’t with you before… we must be against you. Fix it yourself.

sure do something about it….DO IT NOW! Talk is cheap, do something about it. :rolleyes:

Did anyone catch the documentary “Breaking The Silence”, by John Pilger, broadcast in the UK last night? Pilger is a left wing journalist with a very clear agenda, but the most telling moment was during a filmed interview with Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense (!) Policy at the Pentagon) – when the questioning, by Pilger, about Iraqi civilian casulaties (according to Pilger approx 10,000) became a bit too uncomfortable, Feith’s military minder ended the interview promptly. I thought that sort of thing only happened I-raq (sic)
It was one of the most compelling pieces of television I have seen in along time. “Land of the Free?” – only if you agree with us.

“Either bitch the UN wasn’t in from the beginning and then be happy we concede, or call us hypocrites for going it alone and then agreeing to the assistance of others beyond our allies. Pick one and stick to it.”

Hmmm, pick one and stick with it?

Like the UN is irrelevant if it doesn’t support our action, or it is the UNs role to come in now and defend democracy and help Iraq.

…well which is it?

“The people supposed to be helping the citizens are instead having to sort through them and find the few bad apples who spoiled everything for everybody. But no, the fault could never lie on anyone other than an American.”

What would you do if a foreign power came into your country, removed your leader… even if it was Clinton, and then in the rioting and chaos protected fort knox and your oil fields and nothing else. Now they have gotten together a group of so called leaders that has fair (ie non proportional representation) for all groups, who are going to be your voice for a while… ohh and if troops burst into your house then you should cooperate…

“*Russia. Yeah right. They were giving out diplomas to Iraqi Intel agents as recent as last year.”

Which violated which law or Sanction? It is well know that Iraq and Russia have ties. Whipty doo!

“If you attack our government, you are attacking our country.”

Many Americans attacked Clintons policies… including Bush… it is his job… I guess he is unAmerican too.
If you can’t tell the difference between an attack and some criticism then I can understand the real problem. If Americans can’t be criticised… they must be perfect already… no wonder they have such high opinions of themselves.

“and as such am not some politically correct idiot afraid to speak up or speak out.”

You just don’t like it when other speak out back, or have a diferent view… “your either with us or against us” remember…

“Leave them to it then your soldiers are not in danger. America had no qualms about leaving Iraq alone for twelve years after abandoning the Kurds.”

They have to stay mate… those dumb Iraqis might have a civil war and the result might be the oil stops flowing for a while… the whole point of the invasion was to keep the oil production up and therefore prices down.

“If certain militant individuals would cease and desist they’d find we’d be out of their country a lot sooner. “

Do you really think it is in their interests that you leave sooner? Assuming they support Saddam they will prefer that another “target” is present in the country for Iraqis to be p!$$ed off at, then later get some power back. Assuming they support Osama they just want some cheap shots at American personel from friendly territory. They both probably want the occupation force to over stay and become an occupation force… it breeds local sympathy for them.

“Pardon us for not taking the easy way out.”

That is to your credit, but your choice to go in the first place, and now your demands that the UN comes in and helps fill in the craters you made, with promises to allow anyone who does take the risks that they can take their profits out of Iraq, and you fully admit there are huge risks, but oil and minerals are off limits and control remains in some US ex generals hands for the immediate future. Yeah… sounds like a sweet deal to me. But not very noble.

We can go it alone… but now we need your help… but don’t criticise us… we did the right thing.

Did you? Is the world safer? Are the Iraqis better off?

Thanks for the clarification. I see your point, and I agree totally. We’ve committed ourselves and have a responsibility to follow through for the sake of the free Iraqi people. Letting the terrorists get to us and force us to change our strategy and maybe realign our goals would end up hurting them more than it would help our position in the eyes of our one-upon-a-time allies. While I still believe that maybe we should withdraw like everyone wants and let them see how tough it is, the hatred of the Iraqi people would have more repercussions than we might like. I’ll admit that maybe my thought process wasn’t overly complete on that one.

my point SOC is…we, Americans, don’t have a choice to say “i’ve told you so”. we, Americans, are the most rediculed people of the so called 1st world country. we, Americans, are further rediculed for saying quite a normal human thing such as “you owed us”. we, Americans, have proped the world economy up yet being labelled as only suiting ourselves. we, Americans, have made Japan and Germany what they are today instead of what could’ve been if WWII ended the way WWI ended. and, finally, we, Americans will only be thanked by the true victims.

As to Vietnam, let our lesson be not to succumb to abstract thoughts of the protestors and focus on the physical realities of the true victims. Unfortuantely for us, Americans, and fortunately for victims, they do have an expiration date…..as we witness all over the world that certain individuals claimed to “hate” us. We have no choice because we have a cause.

Vortex, I think you’re trying to make a very good point here, but can you do me a favor and clarify your position a little bit? I don’t know if it’s just me but I am having trouble digesting your post. :confused:

all i can say is SOC, many like to point ….the difference is when they are this and Americans are this as if there’s some kind of abstract superiority, but the truth is supported by plenty of precedence when the situation is flipped. Americans can’t, don’t, and won’t have the choice to say “remember last time when we needed help?” That my friend is the difference. We cannot let this be another Vietnam where the outside elements have caused the greatest sufferings of all, the absolute extinction of a nation that sees hundreds of thousands of people (and eventually millions) fleeing as refugees…that i ask is what is the lessons to America should be? Or the lesson that these refugees hold on to their memories and thank Americans for at least trying when ironically those who proclaimed “care by protesting AGAINST American involvement” did them in without any remorse. In that respect Iraq will be like Vietnam in the sense that winning or losing, Americans will be thanked by the true victims. And the opinion of the victims is that all that matters isn’t it? Because if that’s not the case, then let me ask exactly what is your cause?

Originally posted by kev35
SOC

Sorry about the double posting, not sure how I manged to do that.

Regards,

kev35

No problem. The first post was messed up anyway, I only got to reply to maybe half of it. Here’s the rest-

“Can’t comment about the French as I am not French. As for financial gain can you tell me how much American business stands to gain from the American presence in Iraq compared to other countries like Britain, France, Germany, or even Iraq? And the price for that financial gain is the deaths of American and British soldiers.”

Britain will be involved to be sure. But as for the rest, from an economical standpoint, why let them get involved? They didn’t want to come in until the work was done for them in the trenches.

“You may not think the Frech offer was feasible at this time, but is there any more dialogue? Is America prepared to listen to anyone. You say the UN had 12 years to solve the problem of Iraq, some would say America has had the same.”

The difference is that for 12 years the US was working as part of the UN. After 12 years we got fed up and went at the problem on our own. There is a difference. Obviously we’re prepared to listen, we’re asking for assistance!

“Not wholly convinced that’s the reason. Royal Marines in Basra were patrolling on foot and in Berets without helmets and body armour. Not in Bradley’s and Abrams’. The experience gained in patrolling in N. Ireland I would imagine has been invaluable. And yes I am aware that the British have sustained casualties, but hardly to the same extent. We hear of multiple attacks on American service personnel but rarely on British. As you say the British are there in much smaller numbers with possibly a more relaxed posture. If that is the case wouldn’t the seasoned terrorist find them a much simpler target? “

Not if the seasoned terrorist was either not operating in that area or viewed Americans as more valuable targets (likely because that is what they have been told, perhaps?).

“That’s probably the most honest statement I’ve ever heard an American make about Iraq.”

I’m glad you approve, I’m not trying to make any excuses here.

“But America is giving exactly the same impression. Six months on and you have massive military force in place yet the situation seems not to be improving at all.”

We can go on about this part all day, and the result will be the same. You contend that we haven’t done anything constructive yet, and I contend that the reason we haven’t is because of the other issue we have to deal with, terrorism. We can at least agree to disagree, can’t we?

“Yes, and their burial has effectively destroyed them hasn’t it?”

Some of them, but an aircraft and chemical weapons are entirely different things. An aircraft has a lot of nasty electrical stuff for sand to corrode. A drum of antrhax doesn’t.

“If proved true then that would be a worrying development.”

True. We’ll have to see what develops.

“But how much autonomy and democracy will you be willing to give the Iraqi’s? Do they need to subscribe to the “American way”? How much cultural influence will America impose on Iraq, albeit accidentally?”

Cultural influence? Probably a bit, albeit accidentally. Although from my travels I haven’t noticed any blatant extreme Americanization in the Gulf States I’ve visited. Some of them even have McDonalds 😀 As for the Iraqi government, the intent is to set up a free democratic society. The ultimate irony would of course be if the people voted to set up a dictatorship again :rolleyes:

“Yes, Saddam is gone but it seems the Iraqi’s want things to happen faster. Is it that difficult for a country with America’s wherewithal to reinstate essential services like water, electricity, health care and education?”

The education system is getting better. There was an interview a while back with a female Iraqi schoolteacher in Baghdad. It seems one of the first places to get some help was an elementary school for the disabled. Water, to the best of my knowledge, is coming along, specifically in the south, and we never knocked out the power grid at least in Baghdad anyway.

“True he may be dead, bit it doesn’t really matter anymore does it? Alive he is an iconic figure with no shortage of followers. Dead, he is a martyr, same result. The last incidence of terrorism inside your own border was the anthrax situation, got anyone for that yet? Or was it the Washington sniper?”

Domestic terrorism, you make a good point there. As for the anthrax case, isn’t it interesting how that one kind of disappeared from the ole’ radar screen pretty quick?

“Interesting change of attitude. Being hit by LGB’s and cruise missiles wouldn’t have sent him to the Hague. I hope he is caught, perhaps that will persuade the Iraqis things can improve.”

Or at least convince them that they really can be cooperative as Saddam really isn’t coming back.

“Yes, it’s hard work. Not sure whether I can say I enjoy it. At least some good has come of my asininity. I seem to remember you’ve made the odd turkey yourself.”

😀

Hello, Zippo.

“Come to think again, I have to admit that this is a stupid thread and I should not have participated in the first place.”

Your withdrawal from the thread may be welcomed by some.

“Stupid, because it is obvious it has been started in order to provoke the Americans (and Canadians?) in this board, to react the way they have.”

Zippo, you credit me with far too much intelligence. Surely I wouldn’t have the mental capacity to grasp such an abstract concept.

“It seems Kev35 (Kevin the teenager?) enjoys this kind of stuff.”

A teenager, how dare you. I will be thirteen next April. Actually it’s more like kevin the gerbil but you wouldn’t follow that. Funnily enough it seems to have provoked you as well.

Regards,

kev35

“Come to think again, I have to admit that this is a stupid thread and I should not have participated in the first place.
Stupid, because it is obvious it has been started in order to provoke the Americans (and Canadians?) in this board, to react the way they have.It seems Kev35 (Kevin the teenager?) enjoys this kind of stuff.
Now, as far as the arguments go, I will have to agree that some of those that answered the provocation, are really racist, ignorant and not worth engaging in conversation with.”

Instead of complaining about it, why not tell us what you’re talking about.

“But, I ‘ll make an exception”

Go for it. :rolleyes: I at least assume this means I am worthy of your engaging in conversation…

“You didn’t say it, but it’s implied in almost every sentence you write.
You, like many Americans, believe that you have some God-given right or duty to go around the World interfering in other people’s affairs, ignoring international law, subverting, replacing, or overthrowing governments and when these don’t succeed, bomb them or invade them. You believe that other people must have your kind of values, your kind of democracy and your kind of economic system.Those that happen to disagree with any of the above, are anti-Americans, enemies and nowadays “terrorists”.
You have installed yourselves in every corner of the globe and when the natives resist, you pulverize them, in the name of “your national interest”, “your security” and “your right of defence”.
The illegal and immoral Iraq invasion is the most recent and blatant expression of the above mentality.
So, it shouldn’t be a surprise to you, that American policies are resented in many places nowadays.
Now, I am sure that you completely disagree with the above view and you rather believe your president, who proclaimed that people envy and hate America because of it’s freedom and values!”

You’re right, I do disagree. You’re assuming that my attitude to the issues in this specific thread are a blanket representation of my opinions regarding the United States. And you would be wrong. Refer to my comments to Kevin regarding our relationship with Israel for one.